There was a reason that Casey was reluctant to use JV as a starting C at the beginning of the year, and made the comments about perhaps not using him as much towards the end of the year if they were in contention. I think that JV is going to be very good, but a 20-year old C is just not going to be able to handle experienced NBA centers in the low post and paint.

Interior defense takes a while to master, and JV will need to continue to improve.

Bargnani's defensive struggles are mostly in help situations, and he is not very active, so he doesn't challenge as many shots as other defenders. But he is a decent interior defender in one-on-one low-post situations, etc.

Too bad only 21.9% of his shots are faced in that situation which is 90th of 93.

Sadly he doesn't show up in Appendix 1 or 1A.

And Dwight was 83 of 93 (and 23.6 %) . That’s why they called this report the "Dwight Effect". You should actually read it.

Then again - don’t bother. Anything positive, is not, when it comes to Andrea. Only the negatives count.
Right Matt?

.

One last thing. There was a reason Casey would yank one of his Bigs after a series of plays (where that player was easily beaten), and insert Andrea. Remember, Raps used this very system, as explained in the Report.

All you care about it bargnani, why don't you join him on his journey to no where? he's going to be out of the league soon enough. Bargnani is trash and he is the reason this team has sucked as much as it did. And honestly, its a business. You do whats best for the team, i could care less where bargnani ends up, as long as we benefit from it.

haha on the road to nowhere. i don't agree that he will be out of the league though. there will always be a taker for his skill set and his salary is going to drop in a couple years and so will the expectations. and i agree on the who cares where he goes as long as it helps us part.

And Dwight was 83 of 93 (and 23.6 %) . That’s why they called this report the "Dwight Effect". You should actually read it.

Then again - don’t bother. Anything positive, is not, when it comes to Andrea. Only the negatives count.
Right Matt?

.

One last thing. There was a reason Casey would yank one of his Bigs after a series of plays (where that player was easily beaten), and insert Andrea. Remember, Raps used this very system, as explained in the Report.

.

LOL

You only seem to post when I make a comment towards Bargnani.

In this case your panty-twisted-in-a-knot took a negative from a simple statement of, "Too bad only 21.9% of his shots are faced in that situation which is 90th of 93." That is too bad. With such great defense it would have been awesome if he was up in 35% of those situations like the people at the top of the rankings for situation.

Also I really would have liked to see his breakdown in Appendix 1 and 1A.

I'm going to take your continual but infrequent retorts to any comment I make towards Bargnani as a sign of an irregular menstrual cycle.

And Dwight was 83 of 93 (and 23.6 %) That’s why they called this report the "Dwight Effect". You should actually read it.

But the idea is that Dwight's presence is scaring players off of those interior shots, which is why a smaller percentage of the shots he faces are coming from there. We know that this is not the case with Bargnani.

What this study shows is what we've known since pretty much the beginning of Bargs' career: he's a surprisingly good one-on-one defender, but he's slow and passive as a help defender (which helps to explain why such a low percentage of the shots he faces are close to the basket, because if it's not his own man that's he's defending, then he isn't coming to help).

But the idea is that Dwight's presence is scaring players off of those interior shots, which is why a smaller percentage of the shots he faces are coming from there. We know that this is not the case with Bargnani.
What this study shows is what we've known since pretty much the beginning of Bargs' career: he's a surprisingly good one-on-one defender, but he's slow and passive as a help defender (which helps to explain why such a low percentage of the shots he faces are close to the basket, because if it's not his own man that's he's defending, then he isn't coming to help).

Exactly.

Never mind the fact teams routinely try to draw Howard away from the basket and rarely run an offense through the post against him.

haha on the road to nowhere. i don't agree that he will be out of the league though. there will always be a taker for his skill set and his salary is going to drop in a couple years and so will the expectations. and i agree on the who cares where he goes as long as it helps us part.

I really don't even understand why that dude even joined this site, if all he cares about is bargnani. I've never once seen him actually join a discussion on other players or the team in general. It would be better just to create a bargnani fan site

I find it surprising that people are defending Bargs. I do see the upside in his game, but I don't see him delivering it. He puts forth such little effort at times that it is quite disgusting to watch. You can actually see the intensity and drive just drain from the other players when Bargs would get put on the court this past season. A team can't play good defense when one of it's bigs can't figure out how to switch or rotate and just seems completely lost at times. I've seen him in the paint guarding absolutely no one, looking around wondering where his man is or who he is supposed to guard, oblivious to things his teammates are trying to do defensively. I'm sorry, but he has had plenty of time to learn these things...he should know how to defend the pick and roll and where his place is in the team defense. He is a liability, and his inconsistent offensive abilities absolutely do not make up for it, especially when you consider the negative impact he has on the team in terms of chemistry and personality. He definitely has to go.

However, I've given it some thought and now I think that trading him is just about impossible, as others have suggested in this tread. I can't think of a single reason why any team would want to acquire Bargs at $23 mil over the next two years. Cut that in half and yes, maybe, he could be appealing this offseason. I think we will have little choice but to have him come off the bench next season and then we could very well move him as an expiring contract. I just don't see how a Bargs acquisition could be beneficial for a team. What does he bring to a team that can offset his deficiencies? Nothing as far as I can tell. Maybe financial relief to the teams that were rumored at the deadline (CHI, LAL), but I don't see these options being available in the offseason anymore.

Furthermore, the best options for trading him involve packaging him with our top assets. I really don't like that idea, for a number of reasons, but mostly because our top assets may be undervalued when packaged with Bargs. Realistically, we may have to "give up" an asset just to rid ourselves of Bargs, and that really really sucks. How much more would we get by trading Bargs with JV or DD or TR, as opposed to just trading one of the latter? I'm thinking very little. Could Fields be packaged with Bargs? I can't see how. Maybe a third team needs to be included but either way, we have to move a valuable piece in order to rid ourselves of an invaluable piece. In my opinion, this isn't good business or basketball management, but I do understand that it happens.

The utah trade that ebrian mentioned is intriguing. But if I'm Utah, I'm thinking I can get more out of Kanter/Millsap than JV and Bargs, because really, they would only be getting JV. Just as well to keep Kanter and see if you can get a return on a Millsap S&T that actually helps the team.

Trade scenario's involving Bargs seem rather limited. If I'm the GM, I don't trade him in a package that includes JV, DD, TR, RG, KL or AJ unless the return is significant, and it's hard to believe a significant return is possible in any trade involving Bargs. He will be easier to move as an expiring contract and we could possibly do it without including a decent asset. So, I don't want to, but I think keep is the most realistic option.

The utah trade that ebrian mentioned is intriguing. But if I'm Utah, I'm thinking I can get more out of Kanter/Millsap than JV and Bargs, because really, they would only be getting JV. Just as well to keep Kanter and see if you can get a return on a Millsap S&T that actually helps the team.

Trade scenario's involving Bargs seem rather limited. If I'm the GM, I don't trade him in a package that includes JV, DD, TR, RG, KL or AJ unless the return is significant, and it's hard to believe a significant return is possible in any trade involving Bargs. He will be easier to move as an expiring contract and we could possibly do it without including a decent asset. So, I don't want to, but I think keep is the most realistic option.

Hold up, I didn't come up with that and I think it was Bargs/DD for Millsap. No JV for sure.

But I agree with what you're saying about how Bargs can diminish the value of the second player we're trading.

Thought of this watching Kendrick Perkins drag his ass up and down the court. Why not try to do a garbage swap with OKC and pluck an asset from their team? Seems unlikely given the way OKC is run, but there could be a chance.

I was thinking
Bargs for Perkins + Perry Jones

Why OKC does it? Ok, we all know Bargs problems. We also know his positives. OKC lacks some very obvious things...size, post defense, scoring in the frontcourt, and shooting from someone who isn't Durant (Martin is a FA but plays as their only shooter on the court other than Durant). They are not going to get those things from Perkins. They'll also have a very hard time trading him for someone who can bring much of that, especially someone they can afford. There is certainly risk for them that Bargs can't bounce back, even by his standards....but Perkins might be one of the only players in the league more useless than Bargs at this point. Bargnani is not a total liability for them, with good defenders at every other position and one of the best help defenders in the league in Ibaka. I also can't stress enough how much they need some scoring from guys not named Durant and Westbrook. OKC is the type of team that probably wants to hold on to prospects....but Jones might be the one that fits the least on their team. Thabeet fills a need, even if he stays a backup. Lamb also projects to move up in the rotation if they can't fill the void at SG when Martin leaves. Jones is a forward fighting for minutes with Ibaka, Durant and Collison, and just doesn't look like he'll have the chance to grow. Trading him might be the best way to utilize him and might be the least valuable asset they currently have to attach to someone like Perk.

Why TO does it? Perry Jones and some veteran leadership from Perkins. Now, Jones was obviously an intriguing prospect, and while I'm glad they didn't pick him at #8, I would fully endorse acquiring him to see if he can play PF for the Raps. In Toronto, he'd get a chance to earn a role I think, fighting with Acy for backup PF minutes. Perkins also brings some much needed veteran toughness and leadership to the team. I like what Jones brings in terms of potential. Lots of athleticism and versatility as a forward. I can see some Odom-like potential there, though maybe never the passer Odom was. But a long guy who can play both forward spots well and be a matchup problem at either one.

*note: this trade assumes that there really is no great option at PF that presents itself. I would probably do this trade and try to develop Jones rather than go after someone like Mareese Speights or Jason Maxiell in free agency.

Thought of this watching Kendrick Perkins drag his ass up and down the court. Why not try to do a garbage swap with OKC and pluck an asset from their team? Seems unlikely given the way OKC is run, but there could be a chance.

I was thinking
Bargs for Perkins + Perry Jones

Why OKC does it? Ok, we all know Bargs problems. We also know his positives. OKC lacks some very obvious things...size, post defense, scoring in the frontcourt, and shooting from someone who isn't Durant (Martin is a FA but plays as their only shooter on the court other than Durant). They are not going to get those things from Perkins. They'll also have a very hard time trading him for someone who can bring much of that, especially someone they can afford. There is certainly risk for them that Bargs can't bounce back, even by his standards....but Perkins might be one of the only players in the league more useless than Bargs at this point. Bargnani is not a total liability for them, with good defenders at every other position and one of the best help defenders in the league in Ibaka. I also can't stress enough how much they need some scoring from guys not named Durant and Westbrook. OKC is the type of team that probably wants to hold on to prospects....but Jones might be the one that fits the least on their team. Thabeet fills a need, even if he stays a backup. Lamb also projects to move up in the rotation if they can't fill the void at SG when Martin leaves. Jones is a forward fighting for minutes with Ibaka, Durant and Collison, and just doesn't look like he'll have the chance to grow. Trading him might be the best way to utilize him and might be the least valuable asset they currently have to attach to someone like Perk.

Why TO does it? Perry Jones and some veteran leadership from Perkins. Now, Jones was obviously an intriguing prospect, and while I'm glad they didn't pick him at #8, I would fully endorse acquiring him to see if he can play PF for the Raps. In Toronto, he'd get a chance to earn a role I think, fighting with Acy for backup PF minutes. Perkins also brings some much needed veteran toughness and leadership to the team. I like what Jones brings in terms of potential. Lots of athleticism and versatility as a forward. I can see some Odom-like potential there, though maybe never the passer Odom was. But a long guy who can play both forward spots well and be a matchup problem at either one.

*note: this trade assumes that there really is no great option at PF that presents itself. I would probably do this trade and try to develop Jones rather than go after someone like Mareese Speights or Jason Maxiell in free agency.

I can see OKC attaching an asset in order to trade Perkins, but I don't think there is any chance they would take back Bargs (despite the need for more offence from their front court).

I think OKC would want a better fit, and anyone taking Perkins needs a bigger perk (wordplay) to take his contract on.

Depending in the direction the Raptors decide to take, I could see them trying to cash in on a few additional assets in a a three team trade.

I can see OKC attaching an asset in order to trade Perkins, but I don't think there is any chance they would take back Bargs (despite the need for more offence from their front court).

I think OKC would want a better fit, and anyone taking Perkins needs a bigger perk (wordplay) to take his contract on.

Depending in the direction the Raptors decide to take, I could see them trying to cash in on a few additional assets in a a three team trade.

On the first couple of bolds about Bargs and better fit. Why wouldn't OKC consider him (again, for Perk)? Just asking, not being defensive....but what better fit could they get for Perk?

On the perk...well Jones is a pretty nice perk for the Raps, since they have no draft pick this year but would still get another young asset with upside. Toronto is also starved for veteran leadership, which is one thing Perkins always brings.

I don't know if OKC will find any better offer for Perkins:

-Bargnani's injuries are probably not something you'd worry about being career ending, and I really believe he's a pretty good fit in terms of what he'll be asked to do on the court. THey also have a strong organization, and like Chicago, one might believe they're one of few teams that could get a lot out of him.

-They probably wouldn't trade Perk for a much larger contract. THey don't have assets to make money work (such as for Gasol or Boozer), and they're in a small market and have thus maintained a shrewd financial approach.

-Given Perk has obviously declined the last couple of seasons, teams getting him wouldn't be expecting him to bounce back strong. At best he could shift to a bench role and hopefully be somewhat productive. At his contract, teams will not give up a good asset to get him for that role. OKC will likely be shopping from the same list that Toronto is with Bargs (undesirable players/contract). I guess there's some chance they would take on a Ben Gordon to fill their SG hole...but I'm not convinced that's in any way better than Bargs for them.

Again, I simply ask, when considering Perkins as a player/contract and OKC's tendencies, who is a better, and still realistic, target? Partly because as you say, a team might want a much better piece attached. But OKC isn't the type of organization to part with a draft pick, especially not just to dump a player...probably only if they were targeting a big-time asset (which Perkins is doubtful to help land). And they don't have many pieces to add on beyond Jones and Lamb.

I like where you guys are going with the OKC trade but... after thinking about it maybe the best option IS to amnesty Bargnani-- hear me out. Unless they can find a quality piece, if they amnesty Bargnani they can take 11+ mill off the cap and pay off Kleiza. Financially this would create cap freedom a year earlier. In real finances it's a mess, BUT instead of having to wait 2 years to seriously build the team they can start the process a year earlier.

Trading Bargnani is only a reasonable option if the team improves with a trade. If not, they might as well create roster space, use minimum one year contracts to fill the bench and take advantage of a deep upcoming draft. If a new GM comes, who wants a title, this might be the only correct long term option.